75% of independents is really impressive, but 49% of Republicans makes me wonder where these people are on social media.
The end result is that any "exoneration" without witnesses will ring hollow to the vast majority of the electorate.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 1| THE ANTI BENGHAZI (Read Staff Post)
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
75% of independents is really impressive, but 49% of Republicans makes me wonder where these people are on social media.
The end result is that any "exoneration" without witnesses will ring hollow to the vast majority of the electorate.
This is the kind of response that begs for a foia of all efforts involved in creating the proposal. And funds spent.
I think the conventional wisdom says those 49% want Hunter Biden
Which is a sign this was a very, very, very bad argument to make.
Better polling would go more specific, right? Name the witnesses, i.e., Bolton, Pompeo, Hunter, etc.
I disagree. It still means the evidence presented asks for further witnesses. If one side was so overwhelming in their facts it would be reflected in the numbers.
What I mean is that the GOP argument that they should call Hunter is backfiring in the polling.
oh, totally.
This is why I think Bernie Sanders, an incrementalist reformist in the social democratic tradition whose agenda is no more ambitious than aligning America with other OECD countries, has a good shot at the presidency, whereas a burn it all down seize the means of production communist would not.
Ooooh. Yes, that's clever.
Leadership has been talking tough the entire time. They have to. It doesn't mean tell anything about behind the scenes.
A stronger response would be "there wont be a successful vote to call for witnesses"
[removing original link, as this all seems to be speculation and misinformation]
So is this real? Any other reports?
EDIT - Seems unlikely.
So is this real? Any other reports?
EDIT - Seems unlikely.
Last edited:
My hot take is I don't really see why calling Hunter Biden as a witness matters. He isn't going to go up there and say "yes, while I was in the Ukraine doing corruption." For all we know he genuinely believes he deserves these jobs!
Have you tried asking some black people? This isnt poc whisperer era. I find these requests to explain why people not in this thread support a candidate we mostly don't like kind of offensive.
He's just the reliable centrist Democrat of old that generally means general support for minority interests.
So, trump lobbyist George Nader who confessed to child sex crimes just got a reduced sentence from multiple LIFE terms down to just 10 years.
That is a huge reduced sentence for something that he was caught red-handed with. Wonder why? Only thing I could think of is a huge plea, giving something/someone up - but what/who?
That is a huge reduced sentence for something that he was caught red-handed with. Wonder why? Only thing I could think of is a huge plea, giving something/someone up - but what/who?
The Quinn results with Bloomberg above Warren with black voters...
I can only assume this is the fear of woman electability in play.
I can only assume this is the fear of woman electability in play.
I don't whisper, but isn't there a simple answer? Thought there was polling which showed the majority of black dems were on the moderate side. Apologies if that's just hearsay.
That's not how he and his campaign are selling this. They are selling it as "Our Revolution".
And unfortunately what comes with an expectation of a revolution is an expectation of achieving newfound progress without progression. But as noted by your excellent post a day or so ago about endorsements and working for a campaign, people actually need to be willing to participate in the progression - sometimes alongside those whose views are sub-optimal but will put in the work for a better ticket.
One of the reasons people are so bothered by the Rogan endorsement is that there's no evidence Rogan or those out there cheering the endorsement are willing to work on the "progression" portion of progress. They also know that the expectation of table-upturning revolution will not be met, and (as mentioned by others before) some supporters will blithely (or in the name of "fair-mindedness") continue to bully minorities of race and gender with the campaign having received "reaching out"-type endorsements such as Rogan.
But if people really want to make waves, things CAN be done at near-revolution speed at the state level. That is, if people participate in and elect representatives that will give statehouses majorities to pass the kind of legislation they want, and governors to sign them and do some of the things they seem to have outsized-unilateral power to do. Sanders or any president isn't just going to be able to solve California's and Mississippi's and Michigan's problems all on their own.
Not really? There might be a few but most of us have simply resigned to the likelihood that he'll be the nominee. That doesn't mean he's anyone's first choice.
He's definitely not my top pick, but at least he probably gets us the Senate, which is more of a stretch for Warren or Sanders.
Schumer needs to bludgeon the bejesus out of her to make sure she votes in line.
Seriously, what the hell, lady?
Seriously, what the hell, lady?
I read the article. That's not what she said. Not the first time a tweet has done this.
I think he's our best (probably only) bet at the Senate at this point.
I'd much rather have and will be voting for Warren though on Super Tuesday.
I can't speak for others. I know I don't support him.
Warren is my fantasy candidate, Biden is my reality candidate.
This, but I call him my "CAN WE PLEASE STOP THIS NOW?" candidate.
Hmm. Is LA Times even a good source to follow? I've only started following them recently.
He doesn't want us to. He'd rather us vote for someone else.
- Status